Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-12

gOOQ TO 6QgenQer 801mOSltleS over aQu6S-
ton which by its very nature should be
settled in calm, dispassionate manner;
and, second, the results of such bitter
contest must operate unfavorably upon
the Democratic party organizations. But
there are other reasons why the vote on
this amendment will be q large one.
Whatever may be the opinion of indi-
viduals as to the cause or the necessity
therefor, there is no disputing the fact
that the people al over this country ere
stirred up more than ever before on
the liquor question. Take the recent vote
in Michigan as an example, and we find
that prohibition Is not only interesting
the people generally, but that it is draw
ing them to the polls. In the election in
that state last month the total vote on the
prohibitory constitutional amendment eX-
ceeded that for state officers, the aggre-
gate of the former being in round num-
bers 366, 900, and Of the latter 363, 900. In
a number of counties hundreds of votes
more were cast for and against the
amendment than for the various Judicial
tickets. This is result almost, if not
quite, unprecedented in Michigan as
well as in other states. AS is we'll known,
the general rule is that constitutional
amendments are neglected by the msjor-
ity of the men who go to the polls, and
there have been cases in Michigan where
not more than quarter of the
men who voted for state officers
took the trouble to express their views
on proposed changes to the constitution.
aven in 1876, when the liquor issue was
last before the people, the question being
whether the section which had been for
twenty-five years in the constitution pro-
| hibiting the granting of licenses should
be stricken out, only 900 voters cast
| ballots on the amendment, while the vote
! for president aggregated 3l6,689. In
other words, ten years ago only about
! third of the men who went to the polls in
Michigan had interest enough in the
! liquor question to vote on it, while last
month the vote shows that men went to
| the polls expressly for the purpose of vot-
ing on this question alone. This one fact
shows a marked change in public senti-
ment. The vote was also unprecedented
iy large for what may be termed an off
election. 1t was $4,000 larger than at the
corresponding election of 1885, and 120,-
900 larger than st the election of 1881.
There is good reason to believe that what
is true of Michigan is true also of other
states, and every indication points to the
same experience in the coming election
in Texas Houston Post.
~
The Fort Worth GAZETTE in an edito-
rial IN its Sundays issue, very properly
COunsels moderation and fair, honest dis
cussion in this campaign. The more so
as it is a canvass of that description
which tends, more than an ordinary po-
To
animosities between neighbor and neigh
bor-one that is calculated to infiame the
public mind. Both sides should remem-
interested in the welfare of the
much we may differ as to the
means, we are ali working for the same
end. Another thing, there is hereafter,
and nothing should be said in this contest
that will be regretted when the August
election is over, and the question def
nitely settled by the people themselves.
Let the whole question of prohibition be
thoroughly Investigated in all it's bearings
and phases, but let it be done logically,
cooIly, reasonably, without appeals to
prejudice or to passion. Above all, let US
escheW personalities, too much OF which
has already cropped out in the campaign.
No matter tor what Interior purposes,
or in what manner, or whether wisely or
unwisely, prohibition has been sprung in
this state, the question appeals to the
cool in gment of the people of Texas.
BY tat Judgment prohibition in this state
must stand or fell, and by that Judgment
good or bad, we must abide. II is mo-.
ment in sthe history of our state Whens
calm, deliberate reason is necessary, in
stead of personal ranCor or appeals to the
passions of men Austin Statesman.
~
BROwNwOoD, TEX, April 27.-Without.
preamble or expression of the views OF
parties who are beginning to
agitate the question, l for
for myself and others in this section of
the state would like an unequivocal ans
wer to the following questions:
l Was the Prohibition party organ ICED in
Texas for political purposes or for the sole OBJ
ject of prohibiting the manufacture and sale of
Intoxicating drinks?
2. Why'd not the executive committee de-
clare their object and purposes in the cam
paign?
3. Is 1t the intention of the Prohibition party
to keep up its political organization in opposi-
Ito IN to the Democratic party after the election
An official answer by you will relieve US of
much complication. and if you really want
prohibition and not Office, thousands of Demo
Gratis will help you carry the amendment, and
still remain intact in the Democratic party.
Respectfully. g. L. GOODWIN.
If Mr.. Goodwin is inquiring as to the
objects of the prohibition movement in
augurated at the city of Waco on the 18th
of March last, we would suggest that the
platform laid down by that convention is
as clear as the MONDAY sun, and the OBJ
jects and purposes of the movement are
made as plain as language can be made
to express it. The third question pro-
pounded in the above is not treated in
the platform, but as the question has
been declared non partisan by the highest
Democratic authority, and the further
fact that very large majority OF the
Democratic party of Texas are prohibit
tionists, is, we think, sufficient safe
guard that the Democratic party is in 40
danger from them.
The Prohibition organization has de-
clared positively in convention assembled
that this campaign was to be made out
side of nOlitical marty line. that pverv